2025:MHC:72W.A.No.2704 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.12.2024

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

and

CMP No.17542 of 2021

1. The District Collector,

Office of the District Collector,

Erode District, Erode – 638 011.

2. Personal Assistant (Development)

to the Collector,

Office of the District Collector,

Erode District, Erode – 638 011.

… Appellants

v.

1. Murisha Fathima

No.1/14, Vellankoil Main Road,

Kadukkampalayam (Post)

Gobichettipalayam Taluk,

Erode District – 638 476.

Now residing at

Murisha Fathima,

Residing at 132 Indira Nagar,

Polavakkalipalayam (Post)

1/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

Gobichettipalayam Taluk,

Erode District – 638 476.

2. Special Officer/Block Development Officer,

Village Panchayat Union Office,

Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District – 638 452.

… Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order

dated 11.08.2021 made in W.P.No.20815 of 2019 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants: Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi

Special Government Pleader

For Respondents: Mr.V.Subramanian –R1

No appearance – R2

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

The Writ Petitioner/R1 in this appeal belongs to the Muslim

Backward caste category. She had responded to Notification bearing

Na.Ka.No.1080/2018/B2 dated 26.03.2018 issued by the Special Officer

of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Erode District

calling for applications to fill the post of Panchayat Secretary in

Kadukkampalayam Panchayat.

2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

2. The said Notification contains, at serial no.2, the details of the

post and the reservation as follows:

Cuhl;rp brayhsu; fhypg;gzpapl';fspd; tptuk;

t/vz;/Cuhl;rp brayhsu;

gjtpaplk;

fhypahf cs;s

Cuhl;rpapd; bgau;

,dRHw;rp

(Rotation)

,lxJf;fPL

(Turn)

1 ///////// /////// ////////

2 fLf;fhk;ghisak;1 (15)

gpw;gLj;jg;gl;nlhh;

K!;yPk;fs;

3 ////////// ////////// /////////

3. The conditions set out in the said Notification are as follows:

epge;jidfs;

1/tpz;zg;gjhuh;fs; fy;tpj;jFjp. ,Ug;gplk;.

rhjpr;rhd;W. Kd;Dupik rhd;W MfpaitfSf;F

Mjhuk; fz;og;ghf ,izf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/

2/,dRHw;rp. TaJ kw;Wk; fy;tpj; jFjpaw;w

egu;fsplkpUe;J tug;bgWk; tpz;zg;g';fs;

epuhfupf;fg;gLk;/

3/xt;bthU fpuhk Cuhl;rpg; gzpaplj;jpw;Fk;

jFjpapd; mog;gilapy; jdpj;jdpna tpz;zg;gpf;f

ntz;Lk;/

4/tpz;zg;gjhuh; fhypaplk; mwptpf;fg;gl;l

Cuhl;rpg; gFjpf;Fs; trpf;f ntz;Lk;/

5/jFjpahd tpz;zg;gjhuh; rk;ge;jg;gl;l

Cuhl;rpapy; ,y;yhtpl;lhy; mt;Cuhl;rpapd;

vy;iyia xl;oa Cuhl;rpapypUe;J tpz;zg;gpf;Fk;

jFjp tha;e;j egh;fs; ghprPyid bra;ag;gLth;/

6/muR tpjpfspd; go ,d Rhw;rp Kiw

gpd;gw;wp epakd';fs; nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk;/

//////////////////////

3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

4. Along with the Writ Petitioner, several others had also applied to

the post. By way of the order impugned in the Writ Petition, dated

26.03.2019, the Block Development Officer of Gobichettipalayam Taluk,

Erode District rejected her candidature on the sole ground that she was not

a resident of Kadukkampalayam Village. It is undisputed that the

petitioner is qualified in all other aspects and her candidature has been

rejected solely on the ground of residence.

5. The Writ Petition came to be allowed on 11.08.2021, Writ Court

holding that the rejection of the application on that ground cannot be

sustained. A positive direction was issued to the effect that the Writ

Petitioner be accommodated to the post that she had applied for, within a

period of four (4) weeks, while protecting the appointment and service of

the person who had been appointed subsequently.

6. The last direction became necessitated on account of the fact that

the appellants, i.e., District Collector and Personal Assistant

(Development) to the Collector/A1 and A2 respectively, had, on rejection

of the candidature of all applicants to Notification dated 26.03.2018,

including the Writ Petitioner, issued a second Notification bearing

4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

Na.Ka.No.3409/2019/Aa2 dated 08.11.2019 calling for applications for

the reserved post with the turn, Backward Class General.

7. The relevant portion of the second Notification dated 08.11.2019

reads as follows:

Cuhl;rp brayh; fhypg;gzpapl';fspd; tptuk;

t/vz;/Cuhl;rp brayh;;

gjtpaplk;

fhypahf cs;s

Cuhl;rpapd; bgau;

,dRHw;rp

(Rotation)

,lxJf;fPL

(Turn)

1 ///////// /////// ////////

2 fLf;fhk;ghisak;1 28 kpft[k;

gpw;gLj;jg;gl;nlhh;

kw;Wk; rPh;kugpdh;

8. After considering all the applications received in response to

Notification dated 08.11.2019, a candidate was selected and an order of

appointment was issued bearing Letter No.1/2020 dated 24.02.2021. It is

relevant to note that the appointment of that candidate was itself made

subject to the pendency of W.P.No.20815 of 2019, which is the Writ

Petition paving the way for the present Writ Appeal.

9. The second Notification dated 24.02.2021 was also the subject

matter of two Writ Petitions, one, W.P.No.326 of 2021is filed by one

P.A.Shahabudeen. His status is unknown. That Writ Petition has come to

5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

be closed on 10.09.2024 with the Court recording that the relief sought

had become infructuous.

10. The second Writ Petition was filed by the present Writ

Petitioner in W.P.No.33680 of 2019. The prayer in that Writ Petition was

for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for, and quashing

Notification dated 08.11.2019. That Writ Petition was dismissed on

03.12.2019, however, protecting the interests of the Writ Petitioner on the

ground that W.P.No.20815 of 2019 was pending at that juncture. The Writ

Court has noted, at paragraphs 7 and 8, as follows:

7. The petitioner had participated in the selection to the post

of Panchayat Secretary in the year 2018. The candidature of

the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner

has fabricated documents to show her residence, within the

village. If the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, the

petitioner will be entitled for the consequential relief and the

petitioner will be considered for appointment to the post of

Panchayat Secretary. Therefore, the petitioner will have to

necessarily wait for the disposal of the writ petition. The

petitioner cannot be permitted to stop the process that has

been initiated by the 4

th

respondent for filling up the post of

Panchayat Secretary.

8. The petitioner cannot be permitted to stall the

process of appointment initiated by the 4

th

respondent. What

the petitioner failed to achieve by way of interim order in the

earlier writ petition which is pending in WP.No.20815 of

2019, is now being attempted to be achieved by filing a fresh

writ petition. This process adopted by the petitioner cannot

be accepted.

6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

11. We are thus of the considered opinion that noting the trajectory

of events as aforesaid, i.e., challenge to the rejection of the Writ

Petitioner’s application, her success in W.P.No.20815 of 2019 dated

11.08.2021, the protection afforded to the Writ Petitioner under order

dated 03.12.2019 in W.P.No.33680 of 2019 and the caveat in order of

appointment dated 24.02.2021 to the successful candidate under the

second Notification, the interests of the Writ Petitioner have been

sufficiently protected. Her success or otherwise in regard to her

application would, in our considered view hinge on our decision in this

Writ Appeal.

12. The appellants have not disputed the fact that the original

Notification issued on 26.03.2018 has been kept in vacuum, to be revived

depending on the decision in this Writ Appeal. It has never been the stand

of the appellants that the original Notification had lapsed in any way and

all actions of the Department in the interim have been subject to the result

of this Writ Appeal.

13. The submissions of Mrs.Yamuna Devi, learned Special

Government Pleader appearing for the appellants are that Notification

7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

dated 26.03.2018 is categoric to the effect that the Writ Petitioner ought to

have been a resident in Kadukkampalayam Taluk in order to render herself

eligible for the post she aspired for. She draws attention to the

epge;jidfs; (conditions) to state that residence is a critical factor for

her eligibility.

14. She would also submit that the petitioner, merely with a view to

bypass the eligibility criteria had taken on rent the property at No.1/14,

Vellankoil Main Road, Kadukkampalayam Post, Gobi Taluk, Erode

District (‘property’/’subject property’). Such conduct should not be

encouraged as it would pave the way for persons from neighbouring

villages to enter into the village in question solely to secure employment.

15. Learned SGP has also taken efforts to obtain

certificates/affidavits from the land owner from whom the Writ Petitioner

had obtained the house on rent. She does not dispute the position that as

on the date of submission of the application on 10.04.2018 (received by

the appellants on 11.04.2018), the Writ Petitioner had taken on rent the

subject property.

16. To be noted, that the last date for receipt of application was on

11.04.2018. There is no dispute on the position that (i) the application

8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

was submitted on 10.04.2018 (ii) the last date for submission of the

application was 11.04.2018 and (iii) the lease deed executed by the Writ

Petitioner is dated 09.04.2018 and was duly enclosed with her application

on 10.04.2018. These dates and events are important as they establish that

the writ petitioner’s application had, technically, been complete in all

respects, including on the aspect of residence.

17. Learned Special Government Pleader draws attention to the

representation that had been made by the residents of Kadukkampalayam

Village, where they state that the village has been historically occupied by

only Hindu community. They hence would express their displeasure on the

appointment of a person from another community as Panchayat Secretary.

We will deal with this aspect of the matter a little later in the order.

18. She also brings to note that the instructions to applicants issued

by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, effective from 20.09.2021

contains a stipulation in Serial No.3-E entitled ‘Qualification’ to the effect

that the qualifications of a candidate responding to Notifications by the

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, should be satisfied as on date of

the Notification itself.

9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

19. With this, she would submit that the order of the Writ Court

accepting the position that eligibility as on the date of application would

suffice, is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and the Tamil

Nadu Public Service Commission Rules. She reiterates that the effective

date for reckoning eligibility would be the date of Notification and not the

date of application.

20. Per contra, Mr.V.Subramanian, learned counsel for the Writ

Petitioner, would defend the order of the Writ Court pointing out that the

settled position of law to reckon effective date, in a situation where the

relevant date has not been prescribed by the Notification itself, would be

the last date for submission of application.

21. To this end, he relies on the following cases:

1.Mrs.Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan and others

1

2.Suman Verma v. Union of India & Others

2

3.Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Others

3

4.The State of Bihar & Others v. Madhu Kant Ranjan & Another

4

5.Sudhir Singh & Others v. State of U.P. & Others

5

6.Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Others

6

1CDJ 1993 SC 235

2CDJ 2004 SC 1057

3CDJ 2007 SC 206

4CDJ 2021 SC 1064

5CDJ 2023 SC 990

6CDJ 2023 SC 512

10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

22. He takes us in detail through the aforesaid decisions to buttress

the proposition as aforesaid.

23. We have heard both learned counsel in detail and also perused

the material records.

24. The facts in this matter are undisputed and have been captured

in the paragraphs supra. The legal issue to be decided in this matter is as to

whether the relevant date for reckoning eligibility of a candidate and

satisfaction of eligibility criteria would be the date of Notification or the

last date of submission of the application.

25. The judgments of the Supreme Court that have been cited are

instructive in this regard. The first judgment that has been brought to our

notice is Mrs.Rekha Chaturvedi

7

, which considers this very question. In

that case, the issue was whether the requisite qualification of the

candidates must be examined with reference to the date of selection or

with reference to an anterior date, being the date of submission of the

application itself.

26. In that context, the Court has settled the position that it would

be improper to consider satisfaction of conditions as on the date of

7 Foot Note Supra (1)

11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

selection. This is for the reason that selection may take place on an

indefinite date, well into the selection process, and sometimes long past

the close of receipt of applications. In such circumstances, it would leave

the field wide open for persons to acquire qualification even after the

Notification period has ended or the last date for submission of

applications has expired.

27. This they believe is not the proper way to approach the matter,

as the candidate must render himself qualified as on the last date for

submission of the applications. At paragraph 5 they reiterate the position

that ‘the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the

last date for making the applications’. At paragraph 6, they set out some

guidelines in this regard, which are extracted below:

We, however, feel it necessary to emphasise and bring to

the notice of the University that the illegal practices in the

selection of candidates which have come to light and which

seem to be followed usually at its end must stop forthwith. it

is for this purpose that we lay down the following

guidelines for the future selection process: A. The

University must note that the qualifications it advertises for

the posts should not be at variance with those prescribed by

its ordinance/Statutes. B. The candidates selected must be

qualified as on the last date for making applications for the

posts in question, or on the date to be specifically

mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the

purpose. The qualifications acquired by the candidates

after the said date should not be taken into consideration,

12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

as that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination. It

must be remembered that when the

advertisement/notification represents that the candidates

must have the qualifications in question, with reference to

the last date for making the applications or with reference

to the specific date mentioned for the purpose, those who

do not have such qualifications do not apply for the posts

even though they are likely to acquire such qualifications

and do acquire them after the said date. In the

circumstances, many who would otherwise be entitled to be

considered and may even be better then those who apply,

can have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of

consideration.

28. The above decision has been followed in several subsequent

cases, cited by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner.

29. The case of Suman Verma

8

is apposite to the facts of the present

case. In that case, the candidate was an aspirant for the post of Extra

Departmental Branch Post Master. One of the requirements was that the

candidate must possess agricultural land. The candidate in that case had

ensured that she was the beneficiary in a gift deed for agricultural land and

had included the necessary document along with her application that had

been filed prior to the last date for such submission.

30. The Supreme Court held that such compliance would be

sufficient for satisfaction of the condition that was stipulated in the

8 Foot Note Supra (2)

13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

Notification. The ratio of this case enures on all fours to the benefit of the

Writ Petitioner.

31. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar

9

, the Supreme Court notes

the dichotomy of views between three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme

Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and another V. Chander

Sekher

10

, where the coram comprises of Dr.Thommen,J, V.Ramaswami, J

and R.M.Sahai,J.

32. Two Hon’ble Judges, Dr.Thommen and V.Ramaswami,JJ had

opined that it would suffice that a candidate may be qualified by the date

of interview even if he was not qualified by the last date prescribed for

receiving the applications. R.M.Sahai,J opined that not possessing

requisite qualification as on the date of application would be fatal to the

candidature.

33. A review application was filed and the matter was once again

placed before a three Judges Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma and others

V. Chander Sekhar

11

. The issue that was crystallised is as follows:

(1)Whether the view taken by the majority (Hon'ble Dr

Thommen and V.Ramaswami, JJ.) that it is enough for a

candidate to be qualified by the date of interview even if he

9 Foot Note Supra (3)

10 (1993) Supp.(2) SCC 611

11 (1997) 4 SCC 18

14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

was not qualified by the last date prescribed for receiving the

applications, is correct in law and whether the majority was

right in extending the principle of Rule 37 of the Public

Service Commission Rules to the present case by analogy?

34. The Bench concurred with the opinion of R.M.Sahai,J holding

that his opinion was an authority for the proposition that in the absence of

a cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for

filing of an application shall be considered as the relevant date for

ascertaining the qualifications of the candidate.

35. This position finds reiteration in the case of Madhu Kant

Ranjan

12

, where at paragraph 9, the Bench states as follows:

9.As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant

has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per

the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein

unless extended by the recruiting authority. Also, only those

documents, which are submitted alongwith the application

from, which are required to be submitted as per the

advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when the

respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner did not produce the

photocopy of the NCC 'B' certificate alongwith the original

application as per the advertisement and the same was

submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date

and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the

additional five marks of the NCC 'B' certificate. In these

circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has

erred in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent

No.1 – original writ petitioner on the post of Constable

considering the select list dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five

additional marks of NCC 'B' certificate.

12 Foot Note Supra (4)

15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

36. Reference has also been made to the case of Sakshi Arha

13

,

which is presently pending reference before the Larger Bench in view of

the split verdict that has been issued. We do not believe that this case

would be relevant to the present matter, as it turns on the production of a

community certificate by the candidate.

37. Ajay Rastogi,J had opined that a community certificate may be

produced even subsequent to the last date for submission of applications,

whereas, Bela M.Trivedi,J has opined that when a person applies under a

particular reserved category, he or she is required to have the certificate of

that particular category on hand and if such certificates were obtained

subsequent to the date of their application or subsequent to the last date of

submission of the applications, such certificates could not be said to be

valid. That is not the issue arising in the present case.

38. In light of the decisions noted by us in the paragraphs supra, we

hold that it would suffice that the Writ Petitioner has established her

residence in Kadukkampalayam Taluk prior to the last date of submission

of application.

13 Foot Note Supra (6)

16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

39. We are pained to note the contents of representation dated

01.10.2018 which has been made ‘on behalf of the local people’ to the

District Collector. This representation contains several signatures, stated

to be of the residents of that village. The contents of the representation or

objections to the appointment of the Writ Petitioner are on the ground that

‘for the past 50 years, no Muslim family has been living in that

Panchayat’.

40. The representors state that the entire Panchayat comprises of

Hindus alone, and that persons who are not attached to the Panchayat,

being the Writ Petitioner, had forged and created a fake document for the

purpose of obtaining an appointment.

41. There is no merit in the allegation that the documents produced

by the Writ Petitioner to establish her residence are fake or forged. In

fact, learned Special Government Pleader would fairly accede to the

position that the property was in the possession of the Writ Petitioner for

two years after her having taken it on rent. Hence, the question of the Writ

Petitioner clandestinely putting forth the cause of possession does not arise

and her claim as a resident is genuine.

17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

42. Over and above that, what is unfortunate is that the objection is

wholly and solely based on the community/religion of the writ petitioner.

This approach is deprecated and has to be discouraged. We posed a query

to the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner to obtain instructions on

whether in spite of stiff resistance of the village residents, the Writ

Petitioner still pursues her case for appointment in that village. We were

heartened when learned counsel reported that she is still interested in

obtaining her appointment on legitimate and constitutional grounds.

43. This Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequence be given within a

period of six (6) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.

44. A candidate has already been appointed pursuant to second

Notification dated 08.11.2019, and the Writ Court has protected that

appointment. As that appointee is stated to have has put in five years of

service as on date, the State will accommodate that candidate also in an

appropriate position taking into account his locational preference with full

continuity of service. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also

dismissed.

Sl [A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J]

Index:Yes 12.12.2024

Neutral Citation:Yes

18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

Speaking order

To

Special Officer/Block Development Officer,

Village Panchayat Union Office,

Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District – 638 452.

19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

Sl

W.A.No.2704 of 2021

and CMP No.17542 of 2021

12.12.2024

20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis